# Why not an even-harder scope?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Created:** [November 13, 2020, 10:57am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087 "2020-11-13T10:57:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tamas\_Papp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tamas_papp/32/25949_2.png) [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2020, 2:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087/9 "2020-11-13T14:14:58Z")

</div>

> [@Benny](#):
>
> EDIT: actually seems like a huge hassle now that it’s been pointed out that method names are (const) variables

One lesson from [all those scope discussions](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/explain-scoping-confusion-to-a-programming-beginner/43206/17) is that scoping rules have complex interactions with each other and the rest of the language, so gotchas like this are common. Ideally new proposals should at least work through the 30–50 relevant examples that came up in those, and/or the cases in the tests.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-not-an-even-harder-scope/50087)._